Follow Blog via Email

The FCC has voted 2-1 to repeal the onerous Obama era rules to control the internet. Under the false claim that the internet needs to be fair and equal for everyone. The charge that ISP (Internet Service Providers) were throttling the speed and bandwidth of internet access in favor of customers that were willing to pay for the faster service. That was never true.

“FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants the commission repeal the rules that reclassified internet service providers as if they were utilities. He thinks the open internet rules adopted under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, were unnecessary and harm jobs and investment.”

Essentially, the Obama regime wanted to take control of the internet and make it a public utility. In effect making the internet like a service controlled by the government. Similar to water, sewer, and electric services, the internet would be controlled by a government panel where access cost and content would be controlled by the government.

However, the internet is a source of innovation and free market development. That freedom would have been taken away by the government. An innovator would have to meet certain government regulations in order to meet government regulatory approvals. Thus throwing a road-block into developers to improve, develop new technologies, and provide open access to the internet.

The internet is not an essential public utility. People lives would not be irreparably harmed if they didn’t use the internet. The internet is more of a luxury than an essential public service. Electric, water, sewer are essential public services for obvious reasons of health and quality of life. However, the internet is luxury.

There are people that live off the grid without internet and telephone services, and they survive just fine. My parents couldn’t make heads or tails of the internet, even though they took computer classes at the community college. I remember my father complaining about popup ads and asking why do they do this on the internet. I said it’s like a newspaper, but with ads that popup to get your attention.

People worry that their internet access and costs would be at the mercy of the ISP provider. The beauty of a free market internet is that you are free to choose your ISP provider. Just like newspapers, you can switch to another publisher, and just like your internet provider, you can switch to another ISP provider. If you don’t like Comcast, then you can switch to another provider like either Time-Warner, Verizon or some local provider.

Under a “One-Size-Fits-All” net neutrality government run utility, you don’t get a choice in providers. You get what the government approves. The government isn’t effective in controlling commerce, but the government would try to control internet content and that’s a scary thought.

Because Net Neutrality would be government controlled, it also means the government would control the content on the internet. The internet would be subject to political influences. The Alt-Left socialists, a.k.a. democrats, want to censor and restrict access to internet content. Just like when the “Fairness Doctrine” was passed in 1949 to restrict the content on the radio. Net Neutrality would restrict Free Speech. The socialist left in America is pushing hard to restrict your First Amendment, and they are not trying to hide it.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission’s view — honest, equitable, and balanced.

Thus the name “Net Neutrality”. The left claims it would make the internet fair and balanced, but in reality it would restrict the content and censor free speech. The left is good at creating flowery names to impose socialism on Americans. President Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and that has brought freedom to the radio airwaves. The explosion of Conservative Talk Radio has become very popular. Just like freedom of the airwaves, freedom of the internet is essential for the proliferation of free expression.

If you don’t like the opinions, then the solution is simple! You change the channel! Just like newspapers, if you don’t like the content, then you can find another newspaper. That is the value of a Free Market Capitalist system. The popularity of Conservative Talk Radio has moved to the internet, and the purpose of Net Neutrality is to restrict content as “honest, equitable, and balanced”. Which is socialist code for censorship of free speech.

Here’s an example: Remember “Air America?” Air America was a leftist radio program organized by socialists personalities to counter the popularity of Conservative Talk Radio. It didn’t last very long. Why? Because of the content. It’s wasn’t entertaining. It was mostly hate speech and it quickly turn people off, and the people switched off Air America. The free market determined the fate of Air America. If Net Neutrality were enacted, then the government would fund this content to keep it on the air. Is that a good use of your tax dollars?

Oddly enough, I heard this phrase on the radio, and I though it was rather apt. The Pep Rally that took place in Tucson had me wondering; why are they calling this a memorial? This was supposed to be a memorial to the people that either lost their lives, or were injured because of some mentally deranged madman. I couldn’t tell between the cheers, hoots and hollers, the screaming and yelling. I’ve been to memorials before, and they are always solemn events. They don’t usually hand out t-shirts at memorials.

What were they thinking?

Usually, at such events, a Priest, Rabbi, or some religious leader speaks, at least delivers a prayer. So they had Attorney General Eric (Nation of Cowards) Holder, and Homeland Security Janet (The System Worked) Napolitano recite passages from the bible. I thought this was somewhat of an odd choice of speakers for such a somber event. I can understand Governor Brewer(R-AZ), and President Obama speaking given the relevance of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords(D-AZ) who was wounded. The 9 year old girl that was killed, Christina-Taylor Green, I could only wonder what her parents were thinking about the surreal carnival like atmosphere within the auditorium.

“Brown Relief”

NPR Latino Glad Assassin Was A “Gringo”

Take this report by NPR where the reporter breaths a sigh of relief, “brown relief” she says, because the shooter wasn’t Hispanic. Somehow, the broad hint of overt racism is alive and well, and on full display at NPR. Another reason why taxpayers shouldn’t be funding this racism.

NPR’S RACIST REPORT

What peaked my interest was Obama’s speech on civility. Just who was his speech directed at? Obama didn’t mention any one person, or any group, by name. However, there were plenty of attacks by people like Paul Krugman, and that Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, against people that had nothing to do with the tragedy. In fact, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated he had no proof of any right-wing hate, but only just his feelings the shooter was influenced by Conservative Talk Radio, the Tea Party and Gov. Sarah Palin.

I have not heard, or seen any publication, from anyone from either the Tea Party, Conservative Talk Radio, or Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking of hatred or violence against anyone. I have heard of the death threats against Gov. Sarah Palin, and ever since Obama’s speech on civility, these threats have increased. Apparently, the people on Obama’s side haven’t gotten the message.

The finger pointing by the left, the hate speech by the left, the threats of violence by the left continue fill the airwaves, the opinion editorials, emails, Facebook pages, and anonymous phone calls. The hate by the left now has only gotten worse since the shooting and one sided.

So what did Obama mean by civility? Censorship? Does he want people to shut up? Who? I wrote in one of my earlier posts a statement that Obama had made, that didn’t seem so civil. So is Obama immune to being civil? Another disturbing quote from Obama’s Tucson memorial speech was this:

“People are far too eager to blame problems of the world on those who don’t think like we do.“

Those who don’t “think” like we do? That’s an interesting statement. This statement reflects the bizarre events that took place at the Tucson memorial. Is it the problems of the world or the lefts own personal problems they blame on others? Liberals think conservatives are morally inferior. They think they are better than everyone else.

The blame by liberals, towards conservatives, for the act of a deranged crazy person, continues today. Civility be damned, and let censorship begin.

Oh, but you already have a fully funded government run broadcaster. It’s called National Public Radio (NPR). You also have Public Broadcast Service (PBS) on Television. All totally funded by taxpayer dollars. All programming determined by people who think you deserve the material content of their choosing. The content of the programming predetermined by a handful of people. You do not have any say in the content, not ratings, no approval or disapproval.

All Determined By A Handful Of Government Bureaucrats

So what’s the problem? Some say, there’s not enough viewership, some say there’s not enough “Fair Content”. Lets explore what “Fair Content” is defined as shall we. Some call it the Fairness Doctrine. A law that goes back to the Communications Act of 1937 when then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt felt it necessary to required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station.

In 1949, The FCC took the view that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.

In the 1980’s, Ronald Reagen dissolved what was then called the Fairness Doctrine. Since then, the rise of such radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh have grown enormous audiences on the AM Radio Band. Why is that? The Free Market took over. Sure, Liberals launched “Air America“, a anti-conservative media wannabe to compete against conservative talk radio, but it failed. It failed miserably. Why?

Could it be that “Air America’s” message is not what people want to listen to? Could it be the message that “Air America” delivered was not what the Air Waves wanted to hear? The Air Waves being the target audience. Who is tuning in to Air America’s message. Some liberals claim, “we already have NPR, why do I need to change the dial and tune into Air America?”.

Good point, but why does Conservative talks radio continue to dominating the AM Dial ratings with more and more radio personalities and audiences? Why are there so many Conservative Talk Radio Pundits with large audiences? Different Media, different medium. Talk Radio is all about listening and learning. Television is all about watching and being entertained. I’ll leave you to decipher why they continue to call the television the “Boob Tube”.

Here in Hawai’i, the print media still struggles to stay mainstream. I get the Hilo Tribune-Herald every morning, and the first thing I do is turn to the Editorial page to read what people here are thinking.